PREDICTORS OF STUDENT DISENGAGEMENT IN FULLY ONLINE HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/ictel.2026.2745Keywords:
Online Higher Education, Student Disengagement, Psychological Factors, Instructional Design, Digital FatigueAbstract
Introduction: The rapid expansion of fully online higher education has increased access for diverse student populations but has also intensified concerns regarding student disengagement. Disengagement in online learning extends beyond withdrawal or dropout and includes behavioral, motivational, psychological, and contextual dimensions that may precede formal attrition. This study sought to identify key predictors of student disengagement in fully online higher education programs within a globally diverse sample of online learners.
Methods: A cross-sectional, correlational design was employed, with data collected from 140 students enrolled in fully online degree programs across multiple continents. Participants completed a detailed sociodemographic questionnaire and a purpose-designed 46-item disengagement instrument assessing behavioral, psychological, instructional, and contextual dimensions of disengagement. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analyses, and multiple linear regression were conducted using STATA 18.
Results: Overall disengagement levels were low to moderate (M = 2.39, SD = 0.48). Psychological and contextual factors emerged as the strongest correlates and predictors of disengagement. Digital fatigue, mental well-being burden, and time-zone or external demands were each independently correlated with higher disengagement. Instructional and social factors, including course design clarity, instructor presence, feedback quality, and sense of community, also significantly predicted disengagement after controlling for sociodemographic variables. Among background characteristics, full-time employment predicted higher disengagement, while older age was associated with lower disengagement.
Conclusion: These findings suggest that student disengagement in fully online higher education is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped more strongly by psychological strain, instructional experiences, and contextual constraints than by static sociodemographic variables. Interventions aimed at reducing disengagement should therefore extend beyond course design improvements to include strategies addressing digital fatigue, mental well-being, and temporal flexibility in globally distributed online programs.
References
Akar M. Students’ disengagement in online courses: validity and reliability of an instrument. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn). 2024;19(1):506-514. doi:https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i1.21733
Akar M. Why do students disengage from online courses? ˜The œInternet and higher education. Published online April 1, 2024:100948-100948. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100948
Akpen CN, Asaolu S, Atobatele S, Okagbue H, Sampson S. Impact of Online Learning on student’s Performance and engagement: a Systematic Review. Discover Education. 2024;3(1).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00253-0
Bailenson JN. Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior. 2021;2(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge; 1988.
Cucos L. How to Interpret Cronbach’s Alpha Results: Complete Guide With Examples. Uedufy.com. Published December 18, 2025.
https://uedufy.com/how-to-interpret-cronbachs-alpha-results/
Dhir A, Yossatorn Y, Kaur P, Chen S. Online Social Media Fatigue and Psychological wellbeing—A Study of Compulsive use, Fear of Missing out, fatigue, Anxiety and Depression. International Journal of Information Management. 2018;40(40):141-152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.012
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Garrison DRandy, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2000;2(2-3):87-105. https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/739/?sequence=1
Kahu ER. Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 2013;38(5):758-773.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Lee Y, Choi J, Kim T. Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2012;44(2):328-337. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01306.x
Lee Y, Choi J. A review of online course dropout research: implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2011;59(5):593-618. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y
Maher JM, Markey JC, Ebert-May D. The Other Half of the Story: Effect Size Analysis in Quantitative Research. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2013;12(3):345-351. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-04-0082
Martin F, Bolliger DU. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning. 2018;22(1):205-222.
doi:https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Skinner EA, Kindermann TA, Furrer CJ. A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2009;69(3):493-525.
Stone C, Springer M. Interactivity, connectedness and “teacher-presence”: Engaging and retaining students online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning. 2019;59(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1235966.pdf
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2008;61(4):344-349.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
Wang C, Sainz A, Joshi SC, Alfred MV. A case study of adult education and literacy programs and the transition to remote services during the COVID‐19 pandemic. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 2022;34(1):37-50. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20352
Zou Y, Kuek F, Feng W, Cheng X. Digital learning in the 21st century: Trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. Frontiers in Education. 2025;10(10). doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of Published Articles
Author(s) retain the article copyright and publishing rights without any restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
